 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsSave Animals from Exploitation (SAFE)STRATEGIC ISSUES & OPTIONSSubmission Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE) recommended a number of approaches to the Commission. These are as follows:
In the opinion of SAFE the modification of animals violates the inherent (or intrinsic) worth of animals. This intrinsic worth is rooted in the integrity of the animal genome. Animals have a clear and recognised status. They are recognised in civilised societies as sentient beings that experience pain and happiness. Furthermore, animals are more than a set of physical traits or capacities - they require dignity. Respect for dignity then equals respect for the entire being, and for it as a symbol of its evolutionary history.
SAFE then stated that it is convinced that organic farming systems generally provide superior animal welfare standards to extensive and intensive non-organic methods. Organic systems promote animal husbandry techniques and work to encourage the animals natural behavioural patterns. Organic systems promote quality animal 'products' ahead of a higher quantity of 'products' at a cheaper price. In their opinion, it can be argued that the health, environmental and animal welfare quality, rather than numerical quantity at a cheaper price to the consumer, is the only true option open to a nation that is showing strong trends.
LAW & LEGISLATIONSubmission SAFE submitted that there are currently major shortcomings in the New Zealand legislative framework, in relation to animal welfare and broader animal ethics resulting from the genetic modification of animals. This problem is related to the imbalance between the speed of scientific technological development, especially when driven by commercial imperatives, on one hand and the social science of 'ethics' trying to keep up on the other hand. They specifically noted a loop-hole in the Animal Welfare regulations where GM carried out on the DNA of some foetuses, embryos or eggs may not be classified as animal experiments. In traditional (non-genetic engineering) experiments, the animal subject of the experiment would normally not continue past birth. However, in GM experiments, the aim of the experiment is often to monitor the 'experimental subject' once it has been born. Furthermore, the experiment will often not end with this one subject, because the manipulation is at the genetic level the experiment may continues into the next generation of animals and then even further generations. As it is not classified as animal research, however, important ethical regulations can be by-passed. If New Zealand continues to use GM technology on animals, it is SAFE’s opinion that a new regulatory structure which places ethics as the central deciding factor in applications is urgently required. Currently there is no approval process to deal with the relevant ethical issues. In New Zealand ERMA’s terms of reference do not include ethics as a factor in approving GM technology applications. ERMA would therefore not be the appropriate body for considering the ethical implications of New Zealand GM applications. If GM of animals is to continue, SAFE believes a national ethics authority should be established parallel to ERMA to consider applications and to allow submissions on each application from the general public and 'interested status groups'. This is modeled on a similar system in the Netherlands.
ETHICAL, CULTURAL & SOCIAL ISSUESSubmission Animal Welfare In his submission Alan Holland highlighted that many potential applications of the new genetic technology will involve non-human mammals. He submitted that the consequence of assuming that non-human mammals are sentient and possess of a range of cognitive faculties is that any invasion, frustration, or indeed termination of their lives requires justification and cannot be taken as a right. Society has a responsibility to regulate the circumstances under which such a privilege might be granted. In his opinion, the arguments for GM of non-human mammals, current practice and human need, should be treated with caution. Furthermore, any proposed GM of non-human mammals stands in need of justification. That justification should be called upon to show how the proposed modification takes account of the animal’s sensitivity and is compatible with its continuing to be able to express its naturally evolved nature.
He then argued that there is evidence that domesticated animals are nearing their physiological limits. The application of GM technology that is designed to further enhance productivity and/or quality of product would lead, therefore, to further deterioration in the quality of the animals’ lives. Even were GM technology is aimed at improving the well-being of the animal the effects of that technology are still uncertain and the changes are, in fact, undesirable. Rather the aiming to change the conditions to suit the animal, the animal is changed to suit the conditions. This, in his opinion, entrenches the original violation — the imposition of unsuitable conditions. Furthermore, there is the risk of further misery being imposed by experimental failure.
It was then noted that "good practice" policy commonly known as the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement) is enshrined in New Zealand legislation under s80(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. As such., this policy should be applied in assessing the use of animals in research, testing and teaching in New Zealand by Animal Ethics Committees as advised by the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee. Alan Holland noted, however, that there is already clear evidence that increasing resort to genetic techniques in the area of animal experimentation will lead to an explosion in the numbers of experimental animals. It was the opinion of SAFE, that this reversal, whatever the benefits, will spark a public backlash. This is because the public has become used to a far more animal-friendly approach by medical researchers to how and even whether they use animals in their research.
Joyce D'Silva outlined possible risks to animals in respect to GM technology. She gave a detailed list of the unintended effects that have occurred when animal have been genetically modified. For example, an Australian project to improve wool growth where the transgene was found in only 2 out of 46 lambs born live and in 10 out of 20 that died. The scientists were stated to have concluded that their experiment "may have a deleterious effect on the physiology of developing lambs" She then submitted that there is already serious talk of creating animals whose consciousness is altered so that they no longer resist being caged and crated. For example, experiments in which mice were genetically modified to be less sensitive to pain. She noted that the scientists had forced both the transgenic and control mice to stand on hotplates. They also injected and painted them with an extract from red peppers known to cause a sensation of burning pain.
This witness then objected to the reduction of sentient animals to a set of functional gene products. She noted that science offers a whole new dimension of power and over the very physiological make-up and even the mental capacity of animals. In her opinion, we can now stop them being who they are, mutilate their bodies before they are born, and reduce highly intelligent sentient beings to inert lumps of muscle and blood. She recommended that this power be rejected. Instead, the concept that animals are individual sentient creatures, capable of suffering and therefore worthy of our concern and care should be actively promoted.
This view was echoed in the witness brief of Professor Robin Attfield. He argued that non human animals have moral standing, and that their interests are morally relevant. Genetic modification (GM), and other human activities, should therefore avoid causing avoidable suffering in non-human animals as well as in human beings. In his opinion, this goes beyond the mere removal of pain. He argued, therefore, that some animal s should not be brought into being at all. For example, desensitised animals, and also kinds of animals the lives of which would not be worth living, including, plausibly, onco-mice, pigs bred to have legs too short to support their weight, and generally animals the lives of which will foreseeably involve considerable disease or suffering.
Intellectual property SAFE noted that in 1980 the United States Supreme Court ruled that non-human organisms could be patented. The world's first patented animal was the "Oncomouse", developed to be uniquely susceptible to a range of cancers. However, SAFE believes that the patenting of sentient beings is morally wrong and that the notion of intellectual property should not extend to the legal ownership of a genetically modified species of sentient being. In their opinion, it is a significant and dangerous jump to move from ownership of individual animals (all animals in New Zealand, even wild animals, are "owned") to ownership of a genetically engineered species of animal.
Public information SAFE then stated that the scientific community have been undertaking genetic engineering for over twenty years. However, there has been little dissemination of the implications and future development of genetic engineering. Those that do receive information are generally shocked at the application of this new technology. SAFE then expressed its concern that some submitters to the Commission are suggesting that it is not necessary for the general public's attitudes to be a critical component of the Royal Commission's decision. Furthermore, there also seems to be a growing attitude within regulatory organisations, that only 'informed' public input is desirable. However, it is SAFE’s opposition that the ethical position of the general public is vitally important in this debate and should be a major factor in the Commission's recommendations. |